What does it take to create a program that matters to youth? We consider the issues from the theoretical to the practical through our work in Project Coach. PC is a Smith College program that teaches teenagers to be youth sport coaches. As a coach, our teenagers must inspire, communicate, problem solve, resolve conflict, plan strategically, and deploy a range of emotional intelligences.
PC uses sports as a means to engage, connect, and empower adolescents.

Thursday, September 12, 2013

Leveling the Playing Field: Out-of-School Programs Closing the Inequality Gap

Post by Co-Founder Don Siegel

For most of us engaged in the world of sport based youth
development, it is all too easy for us to get lost in the day-to-day bustle of
organizing and running activities, and lose sight of why we spend so much of
our time and energy doing this work. It seems that our days are filled with
such tasks as setting-up equipment, transporting children, checking on whether
they did their homework, making certain that their parents know about the times
and places that various events will be happening, and working on a constant
stream of fund raising projects. But, at the start of the new year, it is also
important for us to take a step back and revisit why we do what we do. What is
it that we hope to achieve by spending countless hours engaging kids in our
programs?

Each of us may have a different answer to this question, but I
suspect that in the end we would come up with some variation on the theme of
attempting to level the playing field for youth who, for whatever reasons, need
to catch-up to their more privileged peers. What we want to achieve is to help youth
build the sorts of assets that will give them a realistic possibility for
breaking out of the cycle that has landed them in the “free or reduced lunch”
classification that is commonly used to define kids coming from poor
circumstances and who live in stressed neighborhoods. Geoffrey Canada, the founder and CEO of the
Harlem Children’s Zone, has used the following metaphor to frame what it is
that we are trying to do. He sees the problem as analogous to two trains
leaving a station at different times headed for the same destination. One train
leaves earlier, and travels at a greater velocity than the train that departs
at a later time. Inevitably, the train leaving earlier and traveling faster
will arrive sooner than the train departing later. Whether the later departing
train, which travels slower can catch up or even make it to its destination, is
problematic. However, Canada and others contend, that with appropriate support,
we can get the later departing train to its destination by expediting its start
time and increasing its speed. Of course, this metaphor has to do with redressing
deficient developmental and educational resources and opportunities that we
provide for poor kids growing-up in stressed neighborhoods, relative to their
peers growing up in a very different world. From my perspective, why we do what
we do, is to rectify a playing field that has become distorted and in so doing provide
“whatever it takes” to help the later departing train catch-up. While this
perspective helps us to see the problem, we also know from the work that we do
every day, that solving it is not simple. However, a driving force in our work
is having the belief that a solution exists, that a later departing and slower
train can ultimately get to where it is going, and that we can make a
significant contribution to this occurring.

Another Way to See the
Problem that we are trying to Solve

While most of us have been trying to find ways
to supercharge Train 2, and for the most part, we have done remarkable work to increase
it’s velocity, Train 1, has also accelerated, and reached an even greater
velocity. Unfortunately, it’s incremental speed increase has been greater than
that of Train 2, and the arrival time differential, over the years, has been
actually increasing. That this has occurred is represented by two sources of
data that most of us have heard about, but probably have not spent much time pondering.
The first item has to do with trends in family income in the U.S. over the past
30 years. While there are many ways to
breakdown such information, the contrast between the top 1% and the rest of us
has been a popular, but not uncontroversial way, to do this. On average, these
data show that since 1979 the top 1% have doubled their share of the nations
income from 10% to 20%, while the rest have only seen modest gains, or no gains
at all, depending where a family fell in the 99% distribution. One percenters
also have average incomes of about one million dollars (lower end of the range
being $367K), and between 2009-2011, they saw their incomes rise by about 11%
while the rest fell slightly.[1] When
the data are cut using racial classifications we see a similar pattern. Using
2010 data, it has been reported that white families earn $2 for every $1 earned
by black and Hispanic families, and the wealth gap (i.e., assets minus debts)
has grown over the 30 year period. Recent data shows that, on average, white
families had approximately $632,000 in assets while Hispanics had $110,000 and
blacks, $98,000.[2] These data suggest, as inferred above, that
Train 1 has been traveling even faster relative to Train 2 over the last three decades. A second, related story that has been emerging is how possible it
may be for youth on Train 2 to hop onto Train 1. This, of course, is what I
believe most of us working in the out-of-school world are trying to facilitate.
Again, while remarkable work is being done, aggregate data shows that jumping
from Train 2 to Train 1 is quite difficult. Unfortunately, the data show that once
a child is on a train, it appears that they will have to finish their journey
on it. Despite the American Dream credo that hard work will lead to great
rewards, we see that migrating across the economic spectrum in America is not
so simple. Indeed, 65% of people born in the bottom fifth of the family income
scale stay in the bottom two-fifths, while 62% born in the top fifth stay in
the top two-fifths.[3]
There does seem to be a certain “stickiness” to staying in the bracket to which
one is born, but data also show 8% of males born in the lowest quintile moving
up to the top one. While this is not the norm, it does give us some reason for
hope. Actually, I suspect that most of us would be quite happy with just
helping kids to catch-up a bit, even if it did not mean making it all the way from
the bottom to the top.

A recent report that examines geographical trends in upward mobility
in the U.S. seems to shed some light on this issue.[4]
In scanning through these data one is struck by how much geography and its
concomitants matter in how probable it is for a child who starts in the lowest
income quintile to make it to the top quintile in their lives. For example, for
a child born in Memphis her probability is 2.6%, while for a child born in Salt
Lake City, his probability is 11.5%. While in outright terms, 11.5% is not all
that great, the variation in the data is intriguing, and accounting for why
such a large difference exists between locales might provide some insight into
what we can do to enhance a child’s upward mobility. As well, measures of
absolute upward mobility, which measures the income percentile a child reaches
who starts at the 25th percentile also provides some hopeful trends.
For example, children starting at the 25th percentile in Memphis can
be expected to reach the 34.4th percentile, and those growing-up in
Salt Lake City, on average, reach the 46.4th percentile.[5]

The really interesting questions emanating from these data center on
the factors that account for differences in locales, and what we can learn
about them to help us develop strategies to enhance the upward mobility of the
kids with which we work? Seemingly, these are two of the most critical
questions that should be asked and answered if out-of-school programs are to
have the impact that we hoped they would have when we first became connected to
them as agents of change.

What do the data tell us and what can we do to foster upward mobility?

Doing a variety of statistical analyses, the Harvard-Berkeley
Research Team that published the locale data found that a variety of factors
were related to mobility measures. Significant correlations were found between
upward mobility and such things as school quality, income inequality and
racial/class segregation within a city, the number of kids with two parent
families, and the religiosity, civic engagement, and cohesiveness of a
community.

While it may be speculative, what strikes me most about this study
and its findings is how it dovetails with what many folks in the out-of-school
and educational sectors have already concluded. In essence, underserved kids
need to engage in an array of activities that provide the “wrap-around”
approach that individuals such as Geoffrey Canada have proposed. However, as we
know, family income is intertwined with where one lives, and the associated
resources that are readily available to kids. Advocating for and creating
better schools is great, and certainly plays a critical part in catapulting children
upward, but financial support for them (highly correlated to neighborhood), plays
a critical part in what kids are offered at the schools where they live. As we also
learn from this study, social capital appears to be a critical factor in
discriminating among locales having different upward mobility profiles. In
essence, kids need to bond with their communities, and to bridge beyond to
others who can help them to access resources and institutions that can help
them to build assets that make them more viable in the mainstream. As
hypothesized by some, bridging is particularly difficult in locales that are
spread out, and in which various groups are segregated.[6]
Not only is it more difficult for working age people to find jobs where they
may exist, but it is also more difficult for them to get to them. Children
living in such locales, like their parents, also suffer from being socially
isolated from the mainstream, and, consequently, are less likely to have access
to all of the things that they need to truly thrive.

While most agree that smart growth in city planning and support for
public transportation can help redress problematic geographic sprawl and
demographic isolation, such initiatives are longer term and are not going to be
of much help to kids growing up today. On the other hand, those of us who work
in the out-of-school world can be much more deliberate and immediate in
connecting kids to people, activities, institutions and opportunities that would
not normally be accessible to them. Irrespective
of a program’s core theme, it is hard not to notice the amalgam of people who
come together in the best programs, and the sorts of community and
extra-community activities in which youth in such programs are engaged. In Project
Coach, which is typical of many programs that I have observed, underserved
Latino and African-American kids who live in a relatively isolated section of
town, come together with teachers, graduate students, undergraduate students,
an array of community people, and various others, such as college professors,
health professionals, and mentors. The mix in the group with regard to racial
makeup, socioeconomic statuses, family backgrounds, educational achievements,
and extracurricular interests is remarkably diverse, and reflects the best in
social bonding and social bridging. As well, our program provides for
participants to travel to other locales where they can work with peers from
other programs, visit colleges that they may be interested in applying to, see
exhibits at museums, attend cultural events, and even travel to distant places
within and outside the country. A PCers’ school life is also closely monitored,
and youth are supported with personal academic coaches who help them to
negotiate their way through middle and high school. While not unique to Project
Coach, the sorts of relationships, activities, and experiences that kids get in
such programs are what I think we see missing in the lives of kids growing up
in communities low on the mobility indexes, and who are geographically and
socially isolated from where resources are more readily available to support
their growth and development. In essence, we are helping kids get on the right
set of tracks, increasing the velocity beyond that which they would be moving had
we not been around, and keeping them on the rails as they move outside of their
geographical and socio-economic locales.

While it is very easy to get caught up in the day to day “chaos” of
working in the out-of-school world, we also should stop and reflect on why we
are so willing to expend so much time, energy, and money running a vast array
of activities. In considering the answer to such a question, we should see the
wider issues that we are attempting to address. It is about leveling a very
distorted playing field, facilitating upward mobility, and helping to support a
tenet of the American Dream which claims that if one works hard, expends
effort, and plays by the rules, they, too, can live happy and productive lives.

[3]
For Springfield MA the data show that kids starting in the lowest quintile have
a 7.8% chance of masking it to the top quintile. As well, kids starting at the
25th centile, on average make it to the 41.9th centile.